Test Pilot Admits the F-35 Can’t Dogfight New stealth fighter is dead meat in an a

Of course, the A-10 also operates much closer to allied forces then any other fixed wing aircraft, because of it's slow speed and emphasis on air to ground support.

If you need support from enemy 1/2 mile away or more, call in the BUFF or Eagle. If the enemy is close enough to fire a pistol at you, nothing will do but the A-10.

King of like comparing friendly casualties between a 155mm howitzer and a 60mm mortar. Sure the howitzer causes a bigger boom, but that also prevents it from being used danger close to friendly except in extreme circumstances. The 60mm however can be fired at targets as close as 70 meters from the firing position, greatly increasing the odds that friendlies might get caught in the exchange.

When I was a ground pounder, we were taught to take cover any time our side started to launch mortars. A bad burn of a powder bag or removing one to many and it might end up in your lap instead of that of the enemy.

And for those that do not know, a mortar operates with basically a shotgun like primer at the base of the round, and 4 small bags which look like oversized chew pouches attached to the fins. If you need to reduce the distance the round needs to travel, you remove a pre-selected number of bags to reduce the powder strength. Remove one bag to many by accident, and now the round lands in the middle of friendly forces.

 

The T-51 is the aircraft that was tasked with being the aerodynamic test bed & did not receive the cone until stall spin recovery tests were conducted. T-51 also did not originally have a radar installed as it was not needed for what T-51 was being used to test. T-52 to T-55 have not received that cone.

Freddy.

 

Don't forget Dale Brown's classic "Flight of the Old Dog" where the Soviets build a breakthrough laser system and the U.S. ends up going in with a heavily modified B-52 "Flying Battleship"

 

Even in Afghanistan the A-10 was to fast for providing affective close air support. The Marine Corps use to have a very effective light attack CAS aircraft, the North American OV-10 Bronco. It saw combat action from the Vietnam War to the first Gulf war (Desert Storm.) In fact the first American aircraft shot down during the first Gulf war was a Marine Corps OV-10. But right after the Gulf War some one not thinking about future wars that America might find itself in sent the Bronco's to the bone yard.

Mushroom, I know you remember the Bronco and are familiar of what it was able to accomplish.

It all started in a garage of the home of a Marine fighter jock.

You noticed that the policies set by Congress limited the Air Force to 4,000 combat aircraft and that's why A.F. Bronco's were unarmed.

The following is the history of developing the Bronco by the Marine aviators who started building it in a garage.

Historical note:

Bat-21

Many have seen the "Hollywood Left" politically correct, revisionist history of the rescue of Air Force Lt. Col. Iceal Hambleton during the Vietnam War.

Fact, OV-10 Broncos were involved in the rescue of Bat-21 Bravo, in the movie you see only Cessna 0-2 Skymasters. At least they got the A-1 Skyraiders right.
There were no black American FAC pilots during the Vietnam War. It's just PC revisionism or rewriting history. Read the book.

It was a joint Air Force, Marine Corps and Navy mission to rescue Lt. Col. Hambleton.

The Last Flight of Covey 87
Darrel Whitcomb (author of the BAT 21 book) contributed this eyewitness account about the only OV-10 pilot to win the Congressional Medal of Honor.
http://www.ov-10bronco.net/ov10stories_detail.cfm?NewsID=164


http://www.jollygreen.org/Stories/JG67.htm


Back to the present time. The war in Afghanistan and against ISIS.

 

Reguardless....the F-22 Raptor....which is a true Gen 5 Fighter/Attack Aircraft is something that the USAF has already built a Gen 6 and Gen 7 Replacement for....as the F-22 Raptor was designed in 1989-1990 and was FLYING in 1995-1996....so the U.S. Air Force F-22 is already AN OLD DESIGN....and has been flying for 20 years!!!

The Gen 6 replacement was a Fighter/Attack Drone and the new Gen 7 replacement which we have already taken off and landed on Nimitz Class Carriers with is the Gen 7 Robotic Stealth Self Autonomous Air Supremacy Drone.

Russia has not yet even built a Gen 5 Aircraft yet as the T-50 and it's variets are actually Gen 4.5.

Why?

Because a Gen 5 Stealth Fighter/Attack Aircraft such as is the F-22 Raptor must have a number of things and be able to do a number of things to be called a GEN 5 STEALTH FIGHTER/ATTACK AIRCRAFT.

Gen 5's must have....

#1. A Radar return no larger than a Sparrow.
#2. An ability to SUPERCRUISE thus fly at supersonic speeds without the aid of an afterburner.
#3. The ability to COOL their own engine exhaust to a level that is very difficult to near impossible to detect by IR- LIGHT DETECTION SYSTEMS.
#4. An Electromagnetic IR-Light Emmision Spectrum Scrambler as no amount of engine exhaust design will completely cool the exhaust to the necessary levels needed to avoid IR-Light Detection Systems thus the F-22 Raptor uses a form of EM-Light Spectrum Scrambling to mask the IR-Light emmisions.
#5. Be able to be IN-AIR REFUELED.
#6. Be capable of carrying all air to air missiles and at least two 1000 lbs JDAM's INTERNALLY.

And there are a few other criteria but these 6 are the most important and of the 6 Russia cannot do #1, #3 and #4.

Russia is CLOSE on #1....but the T-50...51...etc...have a radar return the size of a 400 lbs Bear...which is fairly accurate as the radar return is showing itself to be about 2 meters by 1 Meter.

Russia did not design the T-50 with #3 and #4.

#3 Russia will figure out soon enough as it is more of an engine exhaust design to Stealth Geometry issue....but as far as #4....Russia is far behind the United States Technologically as far as #4 is concerned but then again....so is every other Nation on Earth as far as #4 so I would not feel so bad about it.

In fact the F-22 Raptor has such high technology electronics and stealth design and radar absorbant materials that the U.S. CONGRESS HAS OUTLAWED THE SALE OF F-22 RAPTORS TO ANY NATION INCLUDING OUR CLOSEST ALLIES!!! THAT...is how sensitive the High Technology issues are within an F-22 Raptor.

The F-35 is very stealthy as well and is available for sale to our allies and the F-35 has the most advanced avionics and most advanced targeting anf fire control system of any Fighter Aircraft in the world...even better than the F-22....but the F-35 is not as Stealthy as an F-22 as an F-35 has the radar return of a Sparrow and the F-22's Radar Return is said to be INSECT SIZED!!

But as I stated....the F-22 is almost a 27 YEAR OLD DESIGN!!!

The F-22 Raptor has been flying for almost 2 decades!!!!

It was the worlds first Gen 5 Fighter/Attack Aircraft when other Nations still did not possess an aircraft capable of winning a one on one aerial battle against a U.S. F-15 Eagle and the IMPROVED F-15C/D which were flying in the 1970's!!!

Did you know that F-15's first flew in July 1972 and were designed in 1968???!!!

Did you know that the F-15 has been flying for 43 YEARS and that NOT ONCE IN 43 YEARS HAS ANOTHER FIGHTER AIRCRAFT OF ANY NATION EVER SHOT DOWN AN F-15???!!!

The F-15 Eagle has never been shot down by another enemy fighter aircraft.....NEVER!!

And did you know the F-15C's or Improved Eagle II's with their brand new Avionics and Fire Control Look Up Look Down Look Backwards Look Forwards at any angle system using AAMRAM'S are capable of defeating any existing Fighter Aircraft in the world including the new Typhoon Eurofighter??

But a SINGLE F-22 RAPTOR can destroy 10 F-15C Improved Eagle II's before the Eagle Pilots are aware they are being targeted???

And are you aware that a brace..ie...two Gen 7 U.S. Robotic Stealth Self Autonomous Fighter Aircraft are capable of destroying up to 24 F-22 Raptor's without the aid of a B-1MC Missile Carrier???!!!

Six Gen 7 Robotic Stealth Self Autonomous Fighters with the aid of two B-1MC....Missile Carriers using the CUDA Air to Air HYPERSONIC MISSILE.....are capable of destroying up to 612 Enemy Aircraft.

The Gen 7 RSSAF's have no human pilot on the ground and cannot be hacked as they are self guided and self programming to adapt to unforseen threats.

They are capable of Mach 4.6 Velocities but are primarily designed to opperate in the Mach 2.7 range and without a Human Pilot inside they are capable of velocities and turns and banking abilities that would KILL any Pilot.

They are inexpensive and will be built in numbers and many varients such as Air Supremacy, Fighter/Attack, Close Ground Support, Electronic Warfare, SAM Destroyers or Wild Weasals, Tanker Mid-Air Refuelers....and many other varients.



So FORGIVE ME IF I SEEM LIKE I AM NOT GIVING THE RUSSIAN T-55 IT'S DUE....but let's face it....the year is 2015....the Russian Air Force projects it will have a T-54 or T-55 FLYING by 2018 as they will have other varients flying by 2016 but this will be for SHOW as those flying in 2016 will not have the criteria to be labeled a TRUE GEN 5 FIGHTER!!!

Russia does not yet posses the technology to create an Electromagnetic IR-Light Spectrum Scrambler and without this the U.S. can easily track any Russian Stealth Aircraft without an EM Spectrum Scrambler by IR-Light Detectors.

AboveAlpha

 

I found your discussion with Below Omega as rather pointless.

Exhaust cooling is completely pointless taking into account that most of IR-track systems as well as IR-homing missiles are perfectly well capable of locking on heat, produced by plane's friction with air only. Not surprising, taking into account that MiG-25 and SR-71 were designed to sustain 600 degres Celsius temperatures.

Hope they won't go for idiotic flat nozzles, which significantly reduce trust.

 

Source?

 

It is always dissapointing to hear that another person was banned by Google.
http://www.ausairpower.net/TE-IR-Guidance.html


In fact, it is pretty obvious from the amount of all-aspect IR-homing missiles avaliable. You can't lock on engine exhaust in head-on engagement, you know.

 

I am even more sorry to hear that you are expected to support the claims of every other person you encounter. It must be an awful burden

 

Havn't seen a single claim to "support" coming from you yet. What I have seen, on the other hand, is your poor reading and logic skills.

 

Even your link says that the aircraft are only vulnerable to IR at short ranges:

This all assumes that stealth aircraft have not made efforts to reduce overall IR emission more than normal aircraft.

This is a debate forum. When you make a claim on here, it is up to you to provide the evidence. You're not correct by default.

- - - Updated - - -

Examples? What have I failed to support?

Logic would indicate that IR weapons would be far more common on both sides if IR were such a reliable way to target enemy aircraft.

 

Aircraft are not vulnerable to IR. To be more correct, infrared radiation is not used as a weapon against aircraft at the moment.
If you are willing to debate get your wording straigt.

Speaking seriously, IR-guided missiles indeed are not intended for long-range engagements, which makes them less valuable in terms of fighting with stealth aircraft precisely because the latter are supposed to destroy the target before it has a chance to fire back, consequently leading for the more likely long range combat. You are actually supporting my point here.

Olny if I wish to. It is not like I am obligated to prove you obvious "moving trought the air at high speed genetates a lot of friction, which generates a lot of heat, which can be detected" stuff.

Well, now that was truly low reading comprehension skills.

Me:

Meaning I havn't seen any claim coming from you yet. So what do you claim?

Lol, are you actually being serious? IR-guided missiles currently occupy most of the arsenal, intended for use in short range engagements. I don't know how you are not calling that "common".

 

Yeah, thats what I was saying from the beginning.

In post #206, you said this: "Exhaust cooling is completely pointless taking into account that most of IR-track systems as well as IR-homing missiles are perfectly well capable of locking on heat, produced by plane's friction with air only."

I asked you to provide evidence to support that claim. You posted a blind link without quotes from it. I then pointed out how even your own link says such locks are accurate at only short ranges even for normal aircraft, and then provided a wiki link showing that stealth aircraft have been designed to make IR locks even harder.

Yeah, no kidding. In post 206 you contradicted this statement.

Oh the irony, lol

Exhaust cooling is not completely pointless, as you originally asserted. Because aircraft are already hard to lock with IR anyway...exhaust cooling makes it harder.

Because modern air engagements are not at short range. BVR combat is the present and the future.

IR weapons are not well suited to BVR. That is why they are not the norm.

 

They were saying that from the mid 1950's to 1965. That's why the F-4 Phantom was originally built without any guns.

 

It wasn't true then. It is true now.

Military tactics can and do become obsolete. No one would think that bringing back cavalry is necessarily a good idea, even though they may have advantages over modern machines. Technology has evolved dramatically since the 70s.

BVR will be the norm going forward, because it is far more effective than dogfighting. Without a defense against long range detection/weapons locks, a dog fighter is effectively helpless. The F-4 Phantom is a bad example because it was designed during an era when BVR tech was in it's infancy. It has matured a great deal in the decades since.

 

Well, go get your prize then, genius. You might actually go as far as claiming that they are not vulnerable to radiowaves as well and that would be completely true.

Which I perfectly well did.

So what?

Have I said that IR locks are accurate at long ranges?
Nope, I havn't.
Have I said that no measures were done to lower IR signature on dedicated stealth aircraft?
Nope I havn't.

So what you are objecting to?

Really? Let me look at it yet another time.

Hm...no...still can't see "infrared radiation used as a weapon against aircraft at the moment" part. I guess you can be called a liar from the point.

Indeed. So far you are trying to argue with me by actually supporting my argument.

Your skills in using proper terminology are horrible. What are you trying to say by using word "hard" in the particular case?

Apparently that is the reason each and every country, which poseses or developing stealth aircraft, has not only IR-guided short range missiles intended for the use by stealth aircraft but also installs a canon for dogfight into those planes.

Sadistic-Savior reality check failed.


But let us return into your imagination. You just said that BVR are the present and the future and IR-guided missiles are not the norm. Why would you then use an exhaust cooling and other IR-reducing measures if IR-guided weapons won't be used against stealth panes in modern environment?

Stop being a little girl, stop contradicting yourself in the very same post. Make up your mind already!

 

Regarding the first combat loss for fixed wing coalition aircraft druing the Gulf war (Desert Shield/Desert Storm)

I've seen that repeated on more than one website and it's a factual error. The USMC OV-10 was shot down on 1/18/1991

The first coalition aircraft to be shot down during the Gulf war occurred on 1/17/1991 and it was a USAF F-15E lost to AAA fire South of Basra. Even that could be disputed as a USN F/A-18C was shot down by an Iraqi Mig-25 around the same time, that one occurred over Baghdad. An RAF GR1 was shot down the same day over Tallil by AAA.

 

They may not be. The fact that you can detect an aircraft does not mean you can lock weapons into it. Detection alone is not enough.

You contradicted yourself between your two posts. In one you said aircraft are vulnerable to IR, and in another you said they aren't.

So it means you probably do not really know the content of the link you posted and are just spamming it.

Oh good, so glad we are in agreement.

What was your point in Post 206 then? The one where you say "Exhaust cooling is completely pointless taking into account that most of IR-track systems as well as IR-homing missiles are perfectly well capable of locking on heat, produced by plane's friction with air only."

In that quote you seem to be saying that IR homing systems are unaffected by countermeasures such as Exhaust cooling.

Petty insults are not a replacement for facts or evidence.

The Canon is not a primary weapon. It's a last resort weapon.

For the same reason you would have a canon.

 

It's a good article written in 2014 but they have already changed a few things.

They intended to go Gen 6 Drones but they are jumping a generation to Gen 7 due to new breakthroughs in Quantum Processors.

D-wave just put out a 1000 Qubit Quantum Processors for sale to the Public and as long as you have NSA, FBI, CIA, DIA and Cyber Command Clearance you can buy a new D-Wave 1000 Quibit Quantum Computer.

The U.S. Military is said to have already developed 10,000 Quibit Quantum Processors a few years back.

A single one of these has more computational ability than every single computer in the world networked together.

The 10,000 Quibit Units are necessary for completely Autonomous Robotic Aircraft, Tanks, Ships...etc as well as a new generation of Robotic Torpedo's that use water and using an electrical charge split the H20 into Hydrogen and Oxygen Gases and the Hydrogen Gas is used to power these torpedo's which will be in the front and sides and back and follow U.S. Carrier Battle Groups wherever they go.

Thus these Torpedo's which are relatively large can stay underwater indefinitely and carry a conventional or Nuclear Warhead if necessary and are said to be capable of underwater velocities close to 70 knotts.

Everything is ging Robotic and although there will always be a role for Manned Aircraft and Manned Tanks....the vast majority of such Military Weapons systems can be automated and self autonomous.

Lasers specifically the FEL system and the new MEB....Microwave Emmisions Beam which is NOT the same thing as the ACTIVE DENIAL SYSTEM.....will be the weapons of the Future and once our enemies see we don't have to risk our soldiers lives to defeat their Militaries....things are going to CHANGE BIG!!!

AboveAlpha

 

No they don't, when the U.S. Military even after Reagan rebuilt our military during the 1980's that the liberals damaged it during the 1970's it was discovered we still couldn't defeat the Soviets on the European battlefield without using tactical nukes. So the U.S. military adopted maneuver warfare, a tactic that's hundreds of years old.


Air combat tactics, there are more than a few that have been used. It all depends who you are going up against. The U.S. has used the "WELDED WING", "LOOSE DEUCE" and the "FLUID FOUR" Air Combat Maneuvering tactics over the many decades. Back during the Vietnam War over North Vietnam both the USAF and USN used the "Fluid Four" tactics but the Navy gave it some thought and went the shelves and blew off the dust on the old "Loose Deuce" tactics, nothing new, it's been around since WW l. The USAF soon followed and adopted the "Loose Deuce" combat maneuvering. The Loose Deuce is what today's Air Force, Navy and Marine fighter jocks use today, an old combat maneuver tactic.

 

I think most military experts are going to disagree with you that Cavalry are not obsolete.

 

I've seen both dates and will go with 1-17-91. It was a F-15E.

Triple A you say ? But but but I thought AAA was obsolete ?

Very few weapons ever become obsolete, some times they just lay around collecting dust. Some time they see continues use like the 96 year old M-2 .50 Cal HMG or the 104 year old .45 ACP M-1911 A1. Today American Special Operations forces go into combat carrying hatchets, the LaGana Tactical Hatchet seems to be the choice of U.S. Special Forces today. -> http://www.americantomahawk.com/allies/af.htm

 

Good luck donning your chainmail and attacking modern enemies with your sword. Or maybe attacking an F22 in your biplane.

 

But we are entering the Age of Robotics and Direct Energy Weapons and Over the Horizon Global Direct Energy Satellite Target Beaming.

What good is any Ship or Sub or Tank or Large Numbers of Ground Forces when either a Multi-Megawatt FEL Beam or Microwave Emmisions Beam vaporises them or in the case of Human Group Troops....the MEB cooks a persons brain or body?

This is NOT Sci-Fi....although it will take 7 to 12 years.

If an enemy knows the U.S. can just vaporize targets at will....this is a completely new tactic of war.

AboveAlpha

 

Remember the Air Cavalry during the Vietnam War ? The tactics used were horse cavalry tactics, except helicopters were used instead of horses. When the Air Cav were used the way they were suppose to be used, it was very effective, used as a blocking force. But there were times the Air Cav was misused, to many times.

In 2001 right after we just went into Afghanistan some Marine officer at Marine HQ's noticed a book sitting on a book shelf that has been collecting dust for over 60 years. It was the "Small Wars Manual" It was published in 1935, it was the lessons learned of fighting low intensity, small wars during the early 20th Century. On December 7th, 1941 the manual was put on a book shelf and for gotten about for sixty years. Then someone came across and today it's the manual of tactics used today in Afghanistan. It's been updated of course, no reason to know how to pack a pack mule and the U.S. Army also came up with their own "Small Wars Manual" based upon a Marine tactics that were devised during the early 1900's.

One thing asked, what if the United States were have rediscovered the Small Wars Manual during the early 1960's before America fought the Vietnam War as a large war instead of a small war ? Things might have turned out differently.

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/usmc/ford.pdf

http://www.eiu.edu/historia/2012Griffith.pdf

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/usmc/fmfrp/12-15/usmc-small-wars-1940_1-1.htm